GOWLI BUDDANNA versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MYSORE, BANGALORE

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 10-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GOWLIBUDDANNA 
A 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MYSORE, 
, 
BANGALORE 
.. . 
January 10, 1966 
B 
[K. SUDDA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIER!, JJ.] 
lnc<nne Tax Act, 1922 (II o/ 1922), 1. 3-Hlndu undivid1d fom//y-
Whether includes ;oint family with one surviving male mtmber and /nna/e 
member-1. 
' 
B, hill wife, his two unmarried daughters and the appellant who was c 
B's adop!cd son, were members of a Hindu undi\'ided family. In respect 
of the income from dealings of the family, B was assessed during his 
JifjH,jmc in tho status of a manager of the Hindu undivided family. After 
ru. death for the ~ent year 1951-52, the Incom<rtax Ofllcer UICllCd 
the appellant on the basis that tho income waa that of a Hindu undivided 
family and rejected the latter's contention that he should be assessed as 
an indhidual. The order of assessment was confirmed by the Appellate 
Aaalotant Commissioner, the Tribunal and on a reference, by tbo Hi&h 
D 
Coun. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that tbe expression 'Hindu 
• 
undivided family' used in s. 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, means a 
' 
Hindu coparcenary and when on the death of one out of two c~arcCllll'3 
the enfjre property devolve.c; upon a single co-parcener, assessment cannot 
be made of the surviving co-parcener, in the status of a Hindu undivided 
; 
f•mily. 
Alternatively it wa.• contended that even if the entity 'Hindll 
E 
undivided family' in s. 3 is intende<.I to mean a Hindu joint family, a 
sole survivin~ male member of the family, even if there be widows in 
the family entitled to maintenance, may only be assessed 
as an indivi· 
dual. 
HELD : Propeny of a Joint family does not cease to belong to the 
family merely because the family is represented by a single co-parcener 
who poslCS'lCS rights similar to those of an owner of property. 
In the 
Ji' 
~ 
present case the propeny which yielded the income origmally belonged to 
a Hindu undivided family. On the cleath of B although the family which 
included & widow and females born in the family was represented by the 
appellant alone, the property continued to belong to the undivided family 
and income received therefrom was taxable as income of the Hindu un-
divided family. 
(234 DI 
Under s. 3 of the Act, it is not a Hindu coparcenary but a Hintlu 
G 
undivided family which one of the ass.....,ble entities. 
A Hindu joiat 
family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor 
, 
and includeo their wives and unmarried daughters. 
A Hindu coparcenary 
~-
is a much narrower body and includes only those persons who :'itiuire 
-
by binh a status In the joint or co-parcenary propeny. 
Therefore I ere 
may be a Joint Hindu family conaistin2 of & single male member and 
wido""' of deceased of co-parceners. [227 Al 
There was no force in the alternative plea that there must be at least 
H 
two male members to form a Hindu undivided family aa a taxablo entity. 
The expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the Act is used in the aeoae 
in which a Hindu joint family is understood in Hindu law. 
Under the 
-i 
" 
_, 
) 
BUDDANNA V. C. !. T. (Shah, J.) 
225 
A 
Hindu system of law a joint family consist of a single male member 
and widows of deceasecl male membeG and there is nothing in the Act to 
indicate that a Hindu undivided family as an assessable entity must 
consist of at least two male members. (231 El 
Kalyanji Vithaldas & Others v. C.l.T., Bengal, 5 I.T.R. 90 (64 I.A. 28) 
C.J.T., Bombay v. Gomedal/i Lakshminarayan, 3 LT.R. 367; In re Mooljl 
Slcka & others, 3 I.T.R. 123; 
C.I.T. v. A. P. Swamy Gomeda/ll, 5 
B 
I.T.R. 416; Attorney-General of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar and 
others, L.R. [1957] A.C. 540; 34 l.T.R. Supp. 42, discussed. 
Civ11. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 328 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated June 20, 1962 of 
the Mysore High Court in Income-tax Reference Case No. 15 of 
c 
1961. 
K. Srinivasan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sach-
they, for the respondent. 
D 
S. T. Desai, R. P. Kapur for I. N. Shroff, for the intervener. 
The Judgment of the <'.:ourt was delivered by 
Saali, J. One Buddappa, his wife, his two unmarried daughters 
and his adopted son Buddanna were members of a Hindu undivid-
ed family. 
Buddappa died on July 9, 1952. In respect of the 
E business dealings of the family, Buddappa was assessed during his 
life-time in the status of a manager of the Hindu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.